EIRP Proceedings

EIRP Proceedings, Vol 9 (2014)

Abstract:
Political
crises are increasingly frequent and devastating not only for the
population of a state, but also for the international diplomacy.
Such an example is the ongoing Ukrainian crisis. Starting from S.
Fink’s life cycle of a crisis and T.W. Coombs’s crisis
response strategies, I will analyse the evolution of the Ukrainian
crisis and the crisis response strategies of three major
international actors: Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama and Angela Merkel.
The findings of my study will prove that the denial strategy prevails
in Putin’s statement, whereas Obama uses the diminish strategy
and Merkel focuses on the bolstering strategy.

In early 2014, the crisis that
dominated the global public agenda was (and still is), the Russian
intervention in the Ukrainian state space, giving birth to a reaction
of protest and international stupor. The events are still ongoing
despite the actions of various policy-makers. The Ukrainian crisis
gives us the opportunity of applying the theoretical framework on
crisis communication upon the evolution of these events and upon the
crisis response strategies of three main political actors: Vladimir
Putin the Russian president, Barack Obama U.S. President and
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany.

2.
Theoretical Framework, Method, Research Questions

In my analysis I will apply two
theories used in the crisis communication: (1) Steven Fink’s
stages in the life cycle of a crisis (1986) and Timothy W. Coombs’s
crisis responses strategies (2007). The method used in this paper
will be a deductive content analysis.

S. Fink (1986)
identifies four stages of a crisis: (a) the prodromal
stage,
when warning signs may signal the starting point of a crisis; (b) the
acute
crisis stage, when the crisis erupts; (c) the chronic
stage,
when the organization and the main stakeholders try to manage the
crisis by providing crisis response strategies; (d) the crisis
resolution stage,
when the organization returns to normal.

In 2008, after the Russian
President’s a speech focused on constant references to the
restoration of the Soviet Union, the Russian army invaded Georgia.
Although it was a member of the UN, although international treaties
and conventions prohibit military intervention in another country,
Russia has escaped without sanctions. Later in 2008, in Ukraine
triggers the “gas war”, a method of coercion policy of
the Russian Federation through the giant Gazprom on Gas & Oil –
Western orientation government from Kiev tint. After the change of
the political regime in Kiev, and the election of the new Ukrainian
leader, close to Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin's policy in general,
things seemed to calmly recover. Serious economic difficulties of the
Ukrainian society, many internal social pressures and generalized
corruption made arrangements to Kiev to be faced with a major option
in November 2013. Whereas Ukraine refused association with NATO (at
express opposition of Moscow) as it did before, at the European
Council, President Yanukovych rejected the association with the
European Union. The decision provoked a wave of protests in the
capital of Ukraine which gradually manifested across major Ukrainian
cities. The phenomenon that later will get the name “Euromaidan”,
becomes a marathon which gathers tens and even hundreds of thousands
of citizens in the massive anti-government protests.

3.2. The Acute Stage

After a violent sequence that
culminates with the murder of 80 citizens by the Ukrainian security
forces, with the support of the specialists’ likely
intervention of the Russian and Western diplomats very close to
protesters, Russia intervenes. After the end of the Winter Olympics
in Sochi, the Russian troops support the Autonomous Republic of
Crimea in its secessionist attempt. Things get worse when the Russian
troops without markings have begun a siege of the Ukrainian military
bases for two weeks, thus violating four international treaties, and
a bilateral Ukraine – Russia agreement. The Crimean proclaimed
regime declares its independence with the support of Moscow. A
referendum which was considered illegal under Ukrainian law, declares
the secession of Crimea from the Ukrainian state. This was fully
supported by the President of the Russian Federation, despite the
Western and international community protests.

3.3. The Chronic Stage

The Kiev reactions beyond the
rhetoric are almost nonexistent. The international organizations,
especially the UN Security Council paralyzed the Russian veto. The
international law becomes obsolete from the self-determination clause
of the Russian minority living in the Ukrainian space. The Russian
President acknowledges, in a televised speech, the Russian
involvement in the Ukrainian crisis and proclaims the supremacy of
the Russian interests and the need for armed intervention in other
countries, where the ethnic Russians’ interests are “affected”.
The President Putin is not afraid of accusing other international
actors and the Kiev regime, which he labels as “fascist”.
De facto a territory belonging to a state recognized by the UN and
which has secured borders in four international treaties, is declared
independent and joined in 48 hours to the Russian Federation, blowing
up regional stability, and global balance of forces.

3.4. The Resolution of the
Crisis

Unfortunately the Ukrainian
crisis and the phenomenon which started with the protests from
Euromaidan are far from closing. Russia continues to threaten the
territorial integrity of Georgia, the Republic of Moldova (which
signed a treaty of association with the European Union) and Latvia
(facto member of EU and NATO). NATO and the European Union responded
by political statements, arming and moving troops in the Baltic
Countries, Poland and Romania. The office of the Federal Republic of
Germany and the U.S. State Department sent messages to Moscow, which
shows that the Ukrainian crisis escalation is not desirable.
Unfortunately we are far from completing this crisis, and the
possibility of escalation to a higher level is possible. Russia
massed over 50 000 troops on the eastern border and north of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian state is close to dissolution, with a demoralized army,
the severe economic crisis and a huge current account deficit, but
still awaiting for the elections in May 2014. Everything takes place
in a landscape in which Moscow is moving further into force, rising
gas prices delivered to Ukraine by 70%.

4.
The Visibility of Crisis Response Strategies

Beyond the local political
situation in Kiev, the Ukrainian crisis brought to surface three
major international stakeholders: the Russian Federation, the United
States and the largest European country and most important member of
European Union - Germany.

The reactions of three leaders,
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, Barack Obama, the U.S.
President and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Berlin, Federal Republic of
Germany, can be easily framed in Timothy Coombs’s crisis
response strategies.

4.1. Vladimir Putin –
crisis response strategies

The most visible crisis responses
strategies used by the Russian President focused on the denial
strategy. Putin has consistently denied involvement in the Russian
Ukrainian crisis. His speech seemed often conciliatory but without
neglecting to demonize the protest movements and later on the
authorities form Kiev. He even accused them of fascism and threatened
the life of the ethnic Russians living in Ukraine.

“We believe that we must
have good relations with Ukraine and we have no territorial issues.
See Ukraine as a good neighbor, but Russian speakers they wanted
their right to be assured. Russians, like other minorities, have
suffered from a constant political crisis for 20 years.”
Vladimir Putin - March 18, 2014 (Russia Today)

“We Crimea were stolen.
Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia, the heart of its
people. This link has been passed from generation to generation.
(...) Crimea was given like a sack of potatoes”. Vladimir Putin
- March 18, 2014 (Russia Today)

“It is no need to send
troops in Ukraine at the moment, but this possibility exists.”
Vladimir Putin - March 4, 2014 (Russia Today)

“There can be only a single
assessment of what is happening in Kiev and Ukraine: it is an anti -
constitutional coup, a takeover of power by force”. Vladimir
Putin - March 4, 2014 (Russia Today)

“It is extremely important
to avoid the escalation of violence and to achieve a normalization of
the situation in Ukraine as soon as possible.” Vladimir Putin -
February 28, 2014 (AFP )

The strategy of denying and of
diminishing the Russian involvement in the crisis in Ukraine was
achieved by the three crisis communication tactics: attack, denial
and justification. The Russian position is considered “trustworthy”
by the attack on the Ukrainian post- Yanukovych authorities,
described as fascist and anti-Russian. According to Putin, the
Russian minority, especially that who is resident in Crimea, suffered
neither during the crisis, nor previously. This minority is a
relatively recent resident population in Crimea, after the Tatars
depopulation action executed by Joseph Stalin, a few decades earlier,
and the later colonization with ethnic Russians. In Ukraine there
were no social problems between the Russian and Ukrainian ethnic
populations during the crisis situation. The attack on Kiev and on
the Western capitals is one of the tactics used by the Russian
president in his political statements on the crisis in Ukraine, one
of the arguments used being the “Kosovo precedent”
justification rejected both by Berlin and Washington. The
justification for the armed intervention to protect the ethnic
Russians in Kiev come from non-existent threats. The evidence is used
against Russia. It has violated not only the bilateral treaty with
Ukraine, which specifies the number of Russian soldiers deployed in
the Crimea, but also other international treaties which guaranteed
the Ukrainian borders.

4.2. Barack Obama –
Crisis Response Strategies

In contrast to the Russian
president, the U.S. President used a completely different crisis
communication strategy. Barack Obama prefers to mainly apply a
diminish strategy.

“…Russia violates
international law. I know that President Putin has apparently (...) a
different interpretation, but in my opinion (these arguments) is not
fooling anyone. There have been some reports that President Putin
reflects on what happened. Everyone recognizes that although Russia
has legitimate interests in what happens in a neighboring country,
this does not give the right to use force to exert influence in this
country.” - Barack Obama, March 4, 2014 ( Hotnews )

“America’s got a
whole lot of Challenges.” “But Russia”, he added,
“Is a regional power is threatening some of immediate
neighbors, but not out of strength out of weakness. We [the U.S.]
have considerable influence on our neighbors. We do not need them to
invade in order to have a strong co-operative relationship with
them.” - Barack Obama, March 26, 2014 (The Independent)

4.3. Angela Merkel –
Crisis Response Strategies

Unlike the other two political
stakeholders, the German Chancellor provides a more targeted approach
to the crisis since Germany has major interests in the Russian
economic space. Her communication strategies are mainly consistent
with the EU position. Her statements focus on the diminish strategies
through justification and on the bolstering strategy through the
reminder and victimage tactics.

Thus Berlin calls for “finding
a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine, as soon as possible.
Chancellor and presidents agreed that it is necessary, as soon as
possible, a political solution to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine.”
– February 20, 2014 (AFP)

“If Russia continues during
the last weeks, there will be not only a catastrophe for Ukraine.”

“Not only do we perceive
Russia's neighbors as a threat. And not only change EU relations with
Russia. No. This will cause massive damage Russia's economic and
political. Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be put under
question.” - Angela Merkel March 13, 2014 (Reuters)

5.
Conclusions

The analysis
of the three major political stakeholders’ statements during
the Ukrainian crisis proves that the truth has many political faces.
Edward Bernays, the father of public relations, considered that the
truth is important and must prevail during
crisis situations. But his statement proved irrelevant during the
Ukrainian crisis. As shown, the denial strategy used by the Russian
president, Vladimir Putin, proved to be efficient, whereas the
attitude of the two occidental leaders, Obama and Merkel, seemed
ineffective and undermined the international confidence in the U.S.
and Germany (and by extension the EU).